Talk:Female body shape#deletion of .22Other descriptions.22 section

There is no corresponding article on 'Male body shape' so why do we have an article on Female Body Shape? Should either have both or neither. I also contest the usefulness of this article, as it is all over the place. veracity-or-mendacity (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

:I'm agree too. Also need male equivalent if want to stay this article. 2A00:1FA2:4425:8BF0:0:55:16B8:F101 (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Propose Merge with Human Body Shape article. JohnWycliff (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. As much as I find the bodyshape obsession disagreeable, there is much material in both pop journalism and academia dealing with female body shape, body shape obsession, and societal implications of it. It's not Wikipedia's job to police things to our liking or our idea of fairness. BoosterBronze (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that an article is required on Male Body Shape then feel free to make one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.58.85 (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This page is entirely pointless. If it were essentially dealing with the female body in art, culture, society etc. (as others have suggested), it would make sense, but as it is just a collection of biological facts and figures which are available in other articles, it is an unnecessary addition to the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.178.120 (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

:I agree, all the biological facts are found on other pages mainly (body shape)so I would agree with a merge with Body shape. If this article contained new information on the pop culture, art culture, symbolism, sexism etc of the female body it would be worthwhile having this article. At the moment this clearly fails WP:POV as for example, there is nothing from the point of view of feminists in particularly the objectification and idealization obsesseions, how it is used in media, there is nothing about freudians who would say that male obsessions of the female body shape stems from their own mothers body shape, or even how some women make money with it. 188.223.18.19 (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

::Some men make money from their body shape (bodybuilding influencers), and some from making their bodies look feminine (and women on the contrary). So what? What's so informative about that? Absolutely unnecessary article or create an analog with "male body shape". 85.140.22.114 (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Having a (long) article on female body shape and no article at all about male body shape is frankly embarrassing. Either merge this into Human Body Shape or make a male equivalent. (Also, I'd be *fascinated* to know how much of this article was written by men.) Zarkonnen 10:23, 24 June 2012

This is appalling. As true of a reflection of reality as it may be, Wikipedia shouldn't follow suit in objectifying women's bodies. Why are women a subcategory when female is the original/generic sex from a scientific standpoint anyway? If we renamed the page "Female figure', then perhaps it would be less awkward. 76.20.62.197 (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This article has always been a load of crap; I wonder why I've bothered editing it so much over the years. I agree that it's useless and by definition subjective. It belongs more in Cosmo than in an encyclopedia. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

In the "Female Shapes" section, both "Apple" and "Banana" shapes are described as "More Masculine." Later, a study shows that 46% of women are banana and 14% are apple. If 60% of women are "more masculine" perhaps that isn't the right term. Even if that were not the case, I think that terminology seems to imply that the other two body types are better/more attractive, which I don't think we want to do. Kjsharke (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

:Higher estrogen leads to a more hourglass- or pear-shaped figure. Higher testosterone leads to accumulation of body fat in the abdomen and less pronouncement of hips (apple and banana shapes). Hence, yes, those are more masculine. It's also why hourglass shapes are indeed considered more attractive in real life. Men seek high-estrogen women because it signifies (instinctually, of course) higher fertility. I keep telling everyone that Wikipedia is not a place for sugarcoated PC demagoguery, but no one listens, LOL... Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

::Hourglass attractive only for people who likes this type of figure. 2A00:1FA2:4425:8BF0:0:55:16B8:F101 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

If your terminology is taken at face value as correct, then one can only conclude that the terms masculine and feminine are themselves flawed; as the majority of women have a "masculine" shape. Perhaps this needs addressing on the pages for those terms? ... I went to those pages. Ineed, the definition of both is not considered scientific: "Cultural standards vary a great deal on what is considered feminine." So you are both correct. Yes, those shapes may be considered more masculine and yes there's a problem with using a societal norm to solely define women's body shapes. 76.182.83.46 (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, we need to consider that this study was not a scientific study, but rather an article published in JTATM based on the SizeUSA results. The article is here: http://faculty.mu.edu.sa/public/uploads/1345758958.758%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%A9.pdf . 213.105.76.33 (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Tom are October 21 13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.25.98 (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The section Female body shape#Social perceptions of the ideal woman's body selects two studies as being relevant to this topic. The first is the Len Kilgore paper, "Anthropometric variance in humans: Assessing Renaissance concepts in modern applications".{{cite journal | journal=Anthropological Notebooks |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=13{{ndash}}23 |issn=1408-032X

|publisher=Slovene Anthropological Society |year= 2012 |first=Lon |last=Kilgore |title=Anthropometric variance in humans: Assessing Renaissance concepts in modern applications |url=http://www.drustvo-antropologov.si/AN/PDF/2012_3/Anthropological_Notebooks_XVIII_3_Kilgore.pdf}} It is not obvious to me how this paper is relevant, let alone WP:DUE.

{{blockquote|

Subjects: Nine adult Caucasian males and six adult Caucasian females volunteered to participate in this pilot study. The males averaged 24.2 years of age (± 13.9), the females 31.0 years of age (± 13.9). Male height was 182.4 cm (± 7.3). Female height was 164.2 cm (± 9.6).}}

I have these concerns

1. The sample size is tiny, just fifteen in total, of whom just six were women.
2. All the subjects were Caucasian
3. The Vitruvian Man is about skeletal proportions, ratio of distance between finger-tips to height. Muscle and fat distribution is of no interest.
4. Leonardo's objective was to define an artistic canon of body proportions for an idealised male figure. So if it has any validity at all (which I still question), it would be about social perceptions of the ideal man's body.

Is there a convincing argument why it should be retained? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

:Seems reasonable to remove it. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Per WP:BRD, I reverted a bold edit by user:Maangaoorugai4u, first because it just dumped an image at random and second because it doesn't seem to usefully illustrate anything (as required by MOS:IMAGES). But it did make me question whether the existing image selection in the lead was a good one: two idealised European women. It seems to me that a simple sculpture in stone or bronze from at least two diverse cultures makes a better choice. So I too have been bold and done just that: if anyone disagrees then of course we revert to status quo ante and discuss. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)